Monthly Law Journal Artice: Civil Liability for Inadequate Prisoner Medical Care, 2007 (9) AELE Mo. L.J. 301.
      Monthly Law Journal Article: Civil Liability for Inadequate Prisoner Dental Care, 2009 (9) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
     A prisoner argued that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his needs in that they offered him the possibility of having his tooth extracted, but not the option of a root canal procedure. Rejecting this claim, the court found that the prisoner received frequent dental appointments and treatments, and was advised that the tooth in question would cause him continuing infections and pain if not extracted. It was the inmate's choice not to proceed with the extraction, and his difference of opinion, that he should be given a root canal procedure, did not entitle him to that treatment. Brathwaite v. Correctional Medical Services, #07-006, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 56031 (D. Del.).
     While a prisoner claimed that a prison dentist acted with deliberate indifference and failed to treat an abscess in his mouth, the evidence showed that the dentist found no infection or abscess during an examination of the prisoner's teeth and gums. The court found no evidence from which it could conclude that the dentist should have known that the prisoner would develop an abscess and provide treatment to prevent it. The court also rejected a claim that the dentist had used excessive force during the examination, or retaliated against him for filing a grievance against him. Sands v. Cheesman, #08-15513, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 15941 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
     A prisoner's own description of the only symptoms he claimed to have suffered as a result of denial of a specific dental procedure, bonding of a tooth, amounted to a sensitivity to hot and cold and a constant aching. These symptoms, unlike such things as a gum infection or tooth decay, did not constitute serious medical needs as they did not pose substantial risks to his health if untreated. The prisoner's personal prediction that things might worsen over time was not enough to show an Eighth Amendment violation, and the prisoner had been free to request another dental appointment if his condition worsened. Greene v. Pollard, #08-3884, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 12655 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
     Federal court denies certification of a class action defined as all those in the county jail who requested treatment for dental pain and did not see a dentist within seven days. The court stated that, depending on the seriousness of the dental impairment of the individual detainee, the seven-day time period could have been unreasonable for a "very obvious and serious painful dental emergency" that required immediate treatment, while a delay of two weeks might not be unreasonable for minor dental problems. Wrightsell v. Sheriff of Cook County, #08 CV 5451, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14521 (N.D. Ill.).
     A prisoner failed to show that there was a genuine issue concerning whether he was provided inadequate treatment for mental health problems. He was provided with psychiatric medications within 30 days of his arrival at a county jail. His lawsuit demonstrated merely a disagreement with the course of treatment provided, rather than deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The court also rejected a claim concerning treatment provided for an erupted wisdom tooth, when a dentist who examined the prisoner found no cause for concern. Jaquez v. Newell, #07-CV-498, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15964 (N.D. Ok.).
     Federal appeals court overturns summary judgment for defendant dentist in prisoner's lawsuit claiming disregard of a serious risk of harm in allegedly merely giving prisoner ibuprofen for the pain of a severe toothache, rather than providing a temporary filling for that tooth to alleviate the pain, pending the performance of several other extractions which had to be performed before a permanent filling was provided. This allegedly resulted in a seven-month delay in treatment of the cavity at issue. Some other prisoners had allegedly received temporary fillings in such situations. McCarthy v. Place, No. 07-3974, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 24361 (6th Cir.).
     An inmate pursuing a dental malpractice claim under Delaware state law does not have to file an affidavit of merit from a medical professional, as the state law requiring that in medical malpractice specifically excluded claims against dentists from this requirement. The inmate could therefore pursue both his dental malpractice claim and his federal civil rights claim for alleged deliberate indifference to his serious dental needs. Brathwaite v. Correctional Medical Services, Civ. Action No. 07-006, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 71562 (D. Del.).
     A disagreement by a prisoner concerning whether or not a tooth should be extracted was insufficient to show deliberate indifference to his serious dental medical needs. The prisoner claimed that dental treatment was improperly conditioned on his consenting to a tooth extraction that he objected to. The court found that this was nothing more than a difference of opinion concerning the appropriate dental treatment, and did not show that the prison dentist was deliberately indifferent to the prisoner's needs. While the prisoner was entitled to medical (specifically in this case, dental) treatment, he was not necessarily entitled to the type of care he preferred. The prisoner could proceed, however, on his claim that he told the defendants that he was in severe pain because of his diseased teeth, and that nothing was done to alleviate his pain. Anderson v. Fishback, No. CV F 05 0729, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 52791 (E.D. Cal.).
     Correctional institution was entitled to summary judgment on a prisoner's lawsuit for inadequate dental care when the plaintiff failed to respond to an affidavit submitted by a dentist stating that the dental care provided met acceptable standards. Varner v. Grafton Correctional Institution, No. 2007-02432, 2008 Ohio Misc. Lexis 57 (Ohio Ct. of Claims).
     Prisoner failed to show that prison employees were deliberately indifferent to her serious dental needs, improperly revoked her authorization to receive acne medication from an outside source, or failed to protect her from an assault by another prisoner. Wilkens v. Ward, No. 07-6225, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 4211 (10th Cir.).
     Prisoner's claim that correctional employees delayed providing him with the dentures he needed for eleven months, resulting in him suffering pain and difficulty in eating and chewing food was sufficient to present a genuine issue of material fact as to whether they were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. All of his teeth had been pulled except six bottom teeth, and he claims that the remaining teeth cut into his top gums, interfering with his sleep and with eating. Young v. Kazmerski, No. 07-2224, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 4127 (3rd Cir.).
     Prisoner's claim against sheriff, chief deputy, and two jail employees, based on an alleged failure to take him to a dentist when his tooth began to hurt were dismissed when the prisoner did not personally ask them for dental care, and the lawsuit was against them only in their official capacities. The plaintiff failed to show that the alleged denial of dental care was caused by an unconstitutional policy. The plaintiff also failed to show that a jail nurse acted in violation of his constitutional rights when he agreed that she had provided some care and merely was not "pleased" with the care provided. Tucker v. Shepard, No. Civil  3:07CV465, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9307 (S.D. Miss.).
     Prisoner who claimed that he was denied needed dental care created, in his affidavit, a genuine issue of disputed material fact as to whether nurses knew of a serious medical need, and intentionally refused to treat it, either by stating that they would not respond to any of his requests for treatment or by "laughing in his face." A conflict between the existing medical records and the prisoner's version of events was an issue of fact for a jury to decide. Newsome v. Chatham County Detention Center, No. 07-10838, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 27818 (11th Cir.).
     Dental assistant, in allegedly failing to follow prison procedure and repeatedly refusing to add a prisoner's name to a sick call list, resulting in a 7-1/2 month delay in his access to a dentist for the removal of a fragment of a tooth previously extracted could constitute deliberate indifference. The court rejected the prisoner's claim concerning another, chipped, tooth. The dental assistant's action in giving the prisoner a choice between waiting for a filing or immediate extraction of the chipped tooth was not deliberate indifference. Finley v. Parker, No. 05-56531, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 25662 (9th Cir.).
     When a prisoner was seen by a dentist on nine separate occasions over a 13 month period, there was no showing of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, but instead, merely a showing that the prisoner had a different opinion than the dentist concerning the required treatment. The prisoner also failed to allege that he could not afford outside treatment because of indigence. Amarir v. Hill, No. 06-16195, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 25651 (9th Cir.).
     A delay in referring a prisoner to an oral surgeon to have three teeth extracted did not amount to deliberate indifference to a serious medical need when the trial court found, without any clear error, that a prison nurse lacked knowledge of a serious medical need, and that the delay in fact resulted from the prisoner's own failure to follow the institution's administrative procedures. The prisoner's claims amounted to, at most, a claim of negligence, which is not sufficient for a federal civil rights lawsuit, which requires a showing of deliberate indifference. Hartsfield v. Colburn, No. 06-2454, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 17141 (8th Cir.).
     Federal appeals court upholds summary judgment against a prisoner who claimed that a jail's medical personnel were deliberately indifferent to his serious dental needs, and retaliated against him for refusing to visit the county dentist, as well as that the county had an improper policy under which teeth were only pulled out, rather than treated. The defendant produced medical evidence that the treatment provided or offered was adequate, and the prisoner's bare claim that the treatment was inadequate did not create a genuine issue of fact. The prisoner did not prove that there had been any retaliation against him. Further, while the prisoner claimed, on the basis of a conversation with a guard, that the county had a "pull teeth only" policy, his transfer to another facility prior to filing his lawsuit deprived him of standing to pursue any challenge to the alleged policy. Meuir v. Greene County Jail Employees, No. 05-3394 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 13006 (8th Cir.).
     A Florida prisoner's dental malpractice claim accrued in 1999 for purposes of a two-year state statute of limitations, since he then knew that several root canals had failed, even if he did not learn the exact reason for the failure until later. His malpractice claim, filed in 2002, was therefore time-barred. The prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim alleging cruel and unusual punishment could not be pursued against a federal agency under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Secs. 2671-80, and accordingly was properly also dismissed. Trupei v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, No. 06-15005, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 14641 (11th Cir.)
     Prisoner failed to show an unduly delay in receiving dental treatment, and the mere fact that he might have preferred a different course of treatment did not show deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The prisoner's own evidence conclusively established that he had received timely treatment, and there was no evidence that the dentist's choices concerning that treatment were based on any motive beyond providing routine patient care. James v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections, No. 06-2937, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 9919 (3rd Cir.).
     Even if all of a prisoner's complaints concerning his medical and dental treatment were true, that merely established that there was a difference of opinion concerning the appropriate medical treatment for his problems, or that certain defendants were negligent, rather than a violation of his constitutional rights. The prisoner himself agreed that the defendants provided him with the treatment they deemed appropriate. Beauclair v. Graves, No. 06-3265, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12149 (10th Cir.).
     Prisoner's lawsuit claiming deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs was improperly rejected by the trial court when there was some evidence that the medical director of the prison knew of his condition requiring that his teeth be removed but implemented a policy which barred him from being fitted for dentures. Scribner v. Linthicum, No. 06-41108, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 9552 (5th Cir.).
     Prisoner did not show deliberate indifference to a serious medical need simply by alleging that he and another dentist disagreed with a prison dentist's recommendation that a tooth be extracted as non-restorable after a failed root canal procedure. The decision not to perform another procedure, known as an apicoectomy merely showed a medical disagreement about the preferred treatment rather than the deliberate failure to provide adequate care. Davis v. Collins, No. 06-3701, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 9406 (3rd Cir.).
     Texas prisoner's claim that the failure to provide him with recommended dentures caused him difficulty eating, headaches, disfigurement, severe pain, and bleeding in his mouth and stool was sufficient to assert a claim for a violation of his constitutional rights. Vasquez v. Dretke, No. 05-41170, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 5665 (5th Cir.).
     Dentist's offer to modify a prisoner's existing dental bridge, rather than to provide a replacement fixed bridge when the existing one wiggled slightly due to a cavity on a tooth did not constitute deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition. O'Connor v. McArdle, No. 06-1355-cv, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 4101 (2nd Cir.).
     Prison dentist who saw a prisoner on nine occasions, and provided tooth extraction, salt rinses, and medication, did not act with deliberate indifference. Court finds that any delays in treatment were caused, in part, by the prisoner's own refusal to show up for five scheduled appointments. Yoon v. Hickman, No. 05-55338, 171 Fed. Appx. 541 (9th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
     If, as prisoner alleged, a nurse supervisor instructed other prison nurses not to provide him with his prescribed pain medication following a tooth extraction because of his attempted escape effort, this could constitute deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Cook v. Pueppke, No. 1:05CV0105, 421 F. Supp. 2d 1201 (E.D. Mo. 2006). [N/R]
     Incident in which prisoner broke two front teeth was not a dental injury requiring emergency care, so that a delay in treatment did not amount to deliberate indifference to a serious medical need by the private prison-management company managing the facility. Further, the evidence showed that he did not initially ask for emergency care, and that he did not suffer pain which required anything more than over-the-counter medications. Olivas v. Corrections Corporation of America, No. Civ.A.4:04-CV-511, 408 F. Supp. 2d 251 (N.D. Tex. 2006). [N/R]
     Under North Dakota law correctional officials had statutory authority to charge a prisoner's account for the full cost of dental services he received, including an "after hours" fee of $78 billed by the dentist. Wheeler v. Gardner, No. 20050166, 708 N.W.2d 908 (N.D. 2006). [N/R]
     Despite an alleged one-month delay in obtaining dental treatment for him, a prisoner failed to allege facts that would show that defendant prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in not arranging for him to obtain immediate dental treatment for gingivitis and broken teeth. Johnson v. Mullin, No. 04-7110, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 19285 (10th Cir.). [2005 JB Oct]
     Prisoner's lawsuit against federal prison dentists for failure to provide him with needed treatment was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Simmat v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, No. 03-3361, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 13144 (10th Cir.). [2005 JB Aug]
     Prisoner's allegations against prison dentist and others arising out of difficulties with tooth extraction, while they may be sufficient to show negligence, were inadequate to show deliberate indifference as required for a federal civil rights claim. Finnegan v. Maire, No. 04-4200, 405 F.3d 694 (8th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Prisoner could not raise an issue concerning the alleged loss of his tooth for the first time on appeal from the dismissal of his lawsuit claiming deliberate indifference to his alleged tooth injury after he was slapped by a guard. Federal appeals court upholds dismissal of claim for deliberate indifference, finding that there was no evidence that the defendants were aware that his injuries were sufficiently serious to require medical treatment. Hill v. Vannatta, No. 03-3227, 123 Fed. Appx. 723 (7th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Pre-trial detainees who asserted that they were forced to breathe air filled with fiberglass while in county jail adequately stated a claim for deliberate indifference to their health or safety against the county sheriff. Denial of toothpaste for an extended period of time could also violate a detainee's rights because of the possible consequences of poor dental hygiene. Board v. Farnham, No. 03-2628, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 101 (7th Cir. 2005). [2005 JB Feb]
     Dentist's failure to give a prisoner patient a choice to use plastic tooth-colored fillings instead of metal amalgam fillings did not constitute deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, as required to state a claim for cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Green v. Khrisnaswamy, 328 F. Supp. 2d 417 (W.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
     Inmate's claim that prison doctor and nurse failed to arrange for dental care for him for six weeks after his written request stated a possible claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Hartsfield v. Colburn, No. 03-2602, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 11572 (8th Cir.).[2004 JB Jul]
     Prisoner's claim of a "great deal" of suffering as a result of a tooth extraction which did not "go well" was insufficient to support a lawsuit for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Prisoner's claim, at most, amounted to possible negligence or medical malpractice, which is insufficient for a constitutional claim. Majors v. Ridley-Turner, 277 F. Supp. 2d 916 (N.D. Ind. 2003). [N/R]
     Even if it were assumed that oral surgeon acted negligently in removing a piece of tissue from the plaintiff inmate's mouth while failing to extract his impacted wisdom teeth, it would merely be medical malpractice, which is not sufficient to state a federal civil rights claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Rivera v. Goord, 253 F. Supp. 2d 735 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).[N/R]
     Trial court improperly granted summary judgment on prisoner's claim for "deliberate indifference" to his serious medical needs to a dentist who only provided him with dentures fifteen months after first prescribing them as medically necessary, and one month after prisoner filed suit. Farrow v. West, #01-13846, 320 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Jun]
     Pretrial detainee stated a possible claim against dental hygienist for deliberate indifference to his serious dental needs. Correctional officials whose names appeared on prisoner grievance forms, and jail superintendent, were not personally involved in any alleged deprivation of the prisoner's rights, however, and therefore could not be liable. Manney v. Monroe, No. 97C-7483, 151 F. Supp. 2d (N.D. Ill. 2001). [N/R]
     296:119 Prisoner could pursue claim against jail captain based on allegation that he knew of the seriousness of her tooth abscess and acted with deliberate indifference to it, but claims against the county were abandoned when she did not dispute trial court's finding that the county had a policy in place for making and transporting inmates to outside medical (including dental) appointments. Cody v. Dane County, 625 N.W.2d 630 (Wis. App. 2001).
     291:38 Former prisoner, who sued over delay in treatment of cheek abscess, was not a "prisoner" required to exhaust available administrative remedies before pursuing a federal civil rights lawsuit. Burton v. City of Philadelphia, 121 F. Supp. 2d 810 (E.D. Pa. 2000).
     289:8 Prison officials could not withhold medical treatment from a prisoner who needed a cavity filled because the prisoner refused to consent to the extraction of another tooth; such withholding, if true, violated prisoner's constitutional rights. Harrison v. Barkley, No. 97-2286, 219 F.3d 132 (2nd Cir. 2000).
     267:39 Inmate's assertion that prison dentists delayed filling cavities and preferred extracting his teeth to doing so stated a possible Eighth Amendment claim; trial court was mistaken in ruling that delay in dental treatment could not state a federal civil rights claim. Chance v. Armstrong, #97-2028, 143 F.3d 698 (2nd Cir. 1998).
     269:72 Brief drilling of prisoner's teeth without anesthesia did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Bout v. Bolden, 22 F.Supp.2d 646 (E.D. Mich. 1998).
     » Editor's Note: In a related decision in the same case, the trial court found that the plaintiff prisoner submitted fraudulent documents to the court--four memos purportedly authored by a prison official, but which had forged signatures. The court ordered various sanctions against the plaintiff, including the payment of the fees of an expert witness who showed the signatures to be forged and payment of the defendants' attorneys fees and expenses incurred as a result of the "plaintiff's fraudulent acts." Bout v. Bolden, 22 F.Supp.2d 653 (E.D. Mich. 1998).
     » Editor's Note: Other cases finding that lack of proper dental treatment may state an Eighth Amendment claim are: Fields v. Gander, 734 F.2d 1313 (8th Cir. 1984) ("severe pain" due to infected tooth); Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966 (8th Cir. 1995) (three-week delay in dental treatment aggravated problem); and Hunt v. Dental Dept., 865 F.2d 198 (9th Cir. 1989) (plaintiff complained that he was unable to eat properly). See also Dean v. Coughlin, 623 F.Supp. 392 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) ("dental needs--for fillings, crowns, and the like--are serious medical needs"), vacated on other grounds, 804 F.2d 207 (2d Cir. 1986).